Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Corollary of Anatta
- Hi Andrew,
--- In email@example.com, "Herman Hofman"
> <hhofmeister@...> wrote:These are great examples to illustrate your point!
> > But tell me, is the analogy of a sequential system or not? And why
> > anyone read an analogy of a sequential system as being other than
> > sequential?
> Well, that's the heart of the matter, isn't it? The ancient Romans
> used sequential stories as aids to memory (i.e. the sequentialism was
> not the point of the exercise at all - see Rhetorica ad Herennium).
> And medieval European artists painted connected scenes out of
> sequence but ranked according to another system (eg. all pictures
> showing the king came first, even if they were out of sequential
> order). So that's my first question: is the sequence the point of it
I'd like to answer your question, but also leave a bit of a riddle.
I see something similar between this sutta and the sutta about not clinging
to rafts that have served their purpose.
If one clings to notions of virtue, one has not left the first carriage.
There is no clinging to notions of virtue in subsequent stages.
That's what I reckon, anyway :-)
There is ego, but not a self who has it.
(Hofman H. 2005)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Hi Kel,
Thank you for discussing with me in a detached way.
> Kel: For an analytical guy you seem to have a problem withThank you for all your comments. I find them very useful (also because
> analysis? Or for a guy who says literal reading of the text is
> dangerous ...
> >H: Thanks for naming that Sutta. What I think is logical is that
> any gift given
> > with a mind to procure a desired future result is not a gift. And
> any act
> > done with a mind to procure a gift is the act of a charlatan.
> Kel: Here's what is meant by dana:
> Another sutta (A.iii,336) maintains that it is not possible to
> estimate the amount of merit that accrues when an offering is
> endowed with six particular characteristics. Three of the
> characteristics belong to the donor while three belong to the donee.
> The donor should be happy at the thought of giving prior to making
> the offering. He should be pleased at the time of making the
> offering, and he should be satisfied after the offering is made.
> Thus the nobility of thought — without a trace of greed before,
> during and after the offering — makes a gift truly great. The
> recipients also should be free from lust, hatred and delusion, or
> they should have embarked on a course of training for the
> elimination of these mental depravities. When an almsgiving is
> endowed with these qualities of the donor and donee, the merit is
> said to be as immeasurable as the waters in the ocean.
> > H: In relation to how some mindsets can butcher generousity
> through analysis,
> > the following is just the index from an essay on the perfecting of
> > THE PERFECTION OF GENEROSITY (//DANA PARAMI//)
> Kel: Have you read the article beyond the index? It seems fine to
> me but maybe because it's written by Burmese people, hehe.
I don't have to first filter out all the emotional content). I have
read the article many, many times. Writing with you has brought to the
fore in me some deeply imprinted Christian thoughts on dana, which are
conflicting with some of the Buddhist renderings.
This is Jesus' instruction on dana. 'I tell you the truth, whatever
you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for
me.' and "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the
least of these, you did not do for me.'
This is said in reference to "For I was hungry and you gave me nothing
to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a
stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did
not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after
This is said in relation to all people in need, the sick, the elderly,
the untouchables, the unworthy, the criminals, the precept breakers.
The thought of selecting out the sangha for preferential dana is very
contrary to Christian thought.
Thank you for helping me understand where my aversion is coming from.
We'll see where it goes ...